Publisher's Synopsis
Ce livre historique peut contenir de nombreuses coquilles et du texte manquant. Les acheteurs peuvent generalement telecharger une copie gratuite scannee du livre original (sans les coquilles) aupres de l'editeur. Non reference. Non illustre. 1899 edition. Extrait: ...less opposed to the common consciousness of mankind in admitting the reality of individual souls. Dualism is always more popular than rigorous Monism, and the Samkhya was clearly dualistic when it postulated nature, not only as the result of Avidya or Maya, but as something real in the ordinary sense of that word, and when it allowed to the individual souls or (rivas also an independent character. It should be remembered that the denial of an fsvara or personal Lord did not probably form part of the original Samkhya, as presented to us in the Tattva-samasa. It would seem therefore that on these very important points the Samkhya was more conciliatory and less defiant to the common sense of mankind than the Vedanta, and though this is far from proving that it was therefore posterior to the Vedanta in its severest form, it might well be accepted as an indication that these two streams of thought followed parallel courses, starting from a common fund of ancient Vedic thoughts, but diverging afterwards, the Vedanta unflinchingly following its straight course, the other, the Samkhya, avoiding certain whirlpools of thought which seemed dangerous to the ordinary swimmer. To the people at large it would naturally seem as if the Vedanta taught the oneness of all individual souls or subjects in Brahman, and the illusory character of all that is objective, while the Samkhya allowed at all events the temporary reality of the objective world and the multiplicity of individual souls. Of course, we must leave it an open question for the present whether the extreme monistic view of the Veda was due to Samkara, or whether, like Bamanuga, he also could claim the authority of Purva&aryas in his..."
